Intercepts

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 17:14 | Permalink | Comments

Steven Greenhouse of the New York Times informs us that both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win federation like all the Democratic candidates for president and are unlikely to endorse anyone before the primaries.

"The field is much better from a worker’s standpoint than it was four years ago," said UNITE HERE President Bruce Raynor. Funny, we didn't hear any complaints four years ago.

In another earthshaking scoop, Greenhouse tells us the AFT is "leaning toward Mrs. Clinton." Ya think?

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 08:12 | Permalink | Comments

Click here to read:

1) The NEA Paper Trail
2) Summer Doldrums for Teacher Union Membership
3) South Carolina: The Incredible Shrinking NEA Affiliate
4) Last Week's Intercepts
5) Quote of the Week

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 16:47 | Permalink | Comments

I admit to deep ignorance on the topic, but I've always been suspicious of the notion that children have separate and distinct "learning styles," based purely on the fact that when I was a kid, no one bothered asking us what our learning styles were, and somehow we all managed to learn how to read.

This is certain to stir up the pot. Baroness Susan Greenfield, a professor of synaptic pharmacology at Oxford, calls the idea of learning styles "nonsense."

"Humans have evolved to build a picture of the world through our senses working in unison, exploiting the immense interconnectivity that exists in the brain," she told the Sunday Telegraph of London. "It is when the senses are activated together - the sound of a voice is synchronisation with the movement of a person's lips - that brain cells fire more strongly than when stimuli are received apart."

Greenfield added that after more than 30 years of research there is no independent evidence that any learning style inventory "has any direct educational benefits."

Apparently there are academics in Britain who support Greenfield's opinion, though I'm unaware of any outspoken critics of learning styles in the United States, where the theory originated.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 08:21 | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 09:34 | Permalink | Comments

The state of New Jersey just learned that its liability for the health care costs of retired state workers and school employees is $58 billion. This year's state budget is $34 billion.

Gov. Jon Corzine called the news "a pretty heavy body blow."

But not to worry. Rae Roeder, president of Communication Workers of America Local 1033, says workers and taxpayers shouldn't panic about the cost because "the state isn't going out of business."

And therein lies the problem.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 07:49 | Permalink | Comments

The Washington City Paper has a pretty long profile of the Washington Teachers Union and its president, George Parker. Is Parker progressive or a sellout? That's the angle.

Key quote from the former head of WTU's political action committee, who's a Parker opponent, on how district administrators and Parker should interact:

"They should get nauseated when they hear his name because he should be fighting on behalf of the teachers."

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 07:53 | Permalink | Comments

Imagine a place where the pay was so bad, the working conditions so horrible, and management support so lacking that the employee turnover rate was 41 percent over a five-year period.

Inner-city public school? Not this time.

No, it's the National Education Association itself. An examination of the union's list of employees (staff only, not elected officers) from its annual U.S. Department of Labor disclosure reports reveals that of the 706 people who received wages from NEA in 2001, only 419 were still working for the organization in 2006.

Aha, you'll say. These folks didn't necessarily hate their jobs. They might have found better opportunities elsewhere, including those in other states and other unions. They might have had family obligations. They might have retired or died. They might have become stay-at-home moms or dads. They might have sought a less hierarchical system of rewards and advancement. To which I would say...

Exactly.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 10:40 | Permalink | Comments

Here is the August 2007 EIA Video Intercept, meant to accompany the July 23 Communiqué:

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 07:35 | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 17:58 | Permalink | Comments

Click here to read:

1) The Strangest NEA Keynote Speech Ever
2) Last Week's Intercepts
3) Quote of the Week

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 13:12 | Permalink | Comments

More and more, it looks like Democrats.

In South Carolina.

In California.

Nationally.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 07:53 | Permalink | Comments

* In Pennsylvania, school district consolidation enthusiasts are learning why their plans might actually cost more money.

* Amid the widespread public ignorance of the contents of the No Child Left Behind Act and the constant wailing about mandates, curriculum narrowing and unrealistic goals, it's useful when a newspaper actually publishes the standards in a sidebar next to one of these stories.

In an article that bemoans the U.S. Department of Education's decision not to grant Hawaii a waiver from NCLB standards and place the state in the "growth model" program instead, the Honolulu Advertiser printed this handy little fact:

"To meet minimum federal testing goals this year, 28 percent of Hawai'i students must meet math standards and 44 percent must meet reading standards."

It doesn't matter who's to blame. That's not a goal. It's a surrender.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 08:16 | Permalink | Comments

The Hillary Clinton campaign issued a press release announcing the endorsement of her candidacy by Debbie Cahill and three other Nevadans.

Who is Debbie Cahill? She's the deputy executive director of the Nevada State Education Association.

If Obama gets the endorsement of NSEA's executive director, I suspect he'll stage a parade.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 08:06 | Permalink | Comments

Out here in California, legislative leaders are in the midst of secret budget negotiations with the governor. The budget is late, and hanging over their heads is the state's chronic deficit, which we've had since at least the Pete Wilson years.

Anyway, Republicans want to reduce education spending by about 0.8 percent. Naturally, this had led Democrats to claim the GOP wants to "eviscerate public education and public safety."

All of this is standard politics and hardly worth bothering about. But nothing better illustrates how our state government operates than this little tidbit, buried in the Los Angeles Times story about the impasse.

Reporter Evan Halper asked the Democratic majority leaders what the Republicans wanted to cut, but they "declined to answer questions about what specifically the Republicans were proposing, saying that as a condition of the budget talks, they had assured Republicans they would not publicly disclose such details."

The next paragraph reads:

"But education leaders who attended the private briefing said the cut being proposed would wipe out a good chunk of school districts' discretionary spending."

Who are these "education leaders" who receive private briefings about secret budget negotiations, while the rest of us peons wait for the white smoke from the chimney? The next paragraph tells us:

"I cannot tell you how extremely disappointed our members will be to hear this news," said David Sanchez, the incoming president of the California Teachers Assn.

Lawmakers shouldn't be having secret budget negotiations. Secret from whom? The rest of the legislature? The press? The taxpayers? But if they are secret, they should be secret from everyone. Californians didn't elect David Sanchez. California's teachers didn't elect David Sanchez. He was elected without opposition by some 800 teacher union activists who meet four times a year over a weekend.

Union bashing? Replace "education leaders" with "HMO directors" or "big box store executives" or "defense industry interests" and see if you still think this is the way government should be run.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 08:06 | Permalink | Comments

It's a liberal interest group clash of the titans!

The trial lawyers of Keller Rohrback filed suit against NEA and its Member Benefits Corporation for failing its fiduciary duty to members by accepting endorsement money in exchange for promoting high-fee annuity plans.

The suit is similar to the one Keller Rohrback filed in April against New York State United Teachers after the union and investment giant ING agreed to a $30 million settlement with then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

Keller Rohrback represents two teachers, but the firm is seeking class action status for the approximately 57,000 NEA members who participate in the program.

I can hardly wait to see the memos gathered during discovery.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 07:37 | Permalink | Comments

Click here to read:

1) The Business of the Association
2) Running Second
3) Last Week's Intercepts
4) Quote of the Week

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 14:06 | Permalink | Comments

I'm not sure what's going on at NEA Research, but I was floored to visit this page and read:

"What percentage of teachers leave the profession within the first five years?"

and then read the answer:

34%!

It goes on to claim 50% for urban or high-poverty schools, which at least is more in keeping with the pedigree of the original statistic on teacher turnover.

And while I'm very excited that NEA is coming around to clarify this oft-misused statistic, my joy is tempered by the fact that other statistics on that page are so obviously wrong.

It lists the average public school teacher salary as $44,400, even though NEA's own publication, Rankings & Estimates, lists the 2004-05 average salary at $47,674. It also claims the average length of a teaching career is 31 years.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 11:49 | Permalink | Comments

"More than 9,000 delegates at the National Education Association's Representative Assembly voted today in favor of an historic partnership agreement with the American Federation of Teachers." - July 6, 2001 NEA press release

"The activities of the NEAFT Partnership shall be jointly funded and staffed by the AFT and NEA, and the council shall meet at least three times per year." - from the text of the NEAFT Partnership agreement

"The Council met three times: October 23-25, 2001, January 29-31, 2002, and April 22-24, 2002." - from the NEAFT Partnership Report for 2002-03

"The Joint Council, which consists of 15 members from each organization, was scheduled to meet three times this year. Unfortunately, due to schedule conflicts and illness, the Council met only once." - from the NEAFT Partnership Report for 2003-04

"The Joint Council, which consists of 15 members from each organization, is scheduled to meet once a year. Unfortunately, due to schedule conflicts the Council did not meet." - from the NEAFT Partnership Report for 2005-06

"The Joint Council, which consists of 15 members from each organization, is scheduled to meet once a year. Unfortunately, due to schedule conflicts, the Council did not meet." - from the NEAFT Partnership Report for 2006-07

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 08:37 | Permalink | Comments

Dateline – Peru:

"About a dozen public school teachers tried to light a train station on fire in southern Peru amid nationwide protests against a new law that will require them to take periodic competency tests."

"The teachers' union, Sutep, called the strike to protest a law signed by President Alan Garcia on Wednesday that will fire teachers who fail a job competency test three times. February test results showed almost half of public school teachers cannot solve basic math problems and one-third are deficient in reading comprehension."

The latter problem explains this incident. The law cites the teachers' poor "training" and suggests they might be "fired," and they simply misunderstood what they were reading.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 07:35 | Permalink | Comments

I missed this story while at the NEA Representative Assembly last week, but the school funding initiative backed by the Ohio Education Association and other groups will not be on the November 2007 ballot.

The Campaign for Ohio's Future collected only 150,000 of the required 402,276 valid signatures of registered voters. The coalition says it will attempt to place the measure on the 2008 ballot.

Not discussed was the fate of the one-year, $25 special assessment placed on each member of the Ohio Education Association to fund the initiative campaign. With roughly $3 million raised, the current tab is $20 per signature gathered.

Since a large proportion of those signatures must have come from the rank-and-file, it seems OEA members paid $25 for the privilege of signing a petition created by their own union.

UPDATE: A commenter says OEA will not assess the $25. This hasn't been announced publicly, but I have no reason to doubt him.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 08:03 | Permalink | Comments

Because education is such an important issue, Americans inevitably will have clear differences on how to approach it. But the worst part of the involvement of politics in education is that certain statements are established as boundary lines and people then feel compelled to join their friends and allies on one side of the line and stare down their opponents on the other.

We are so caught up in the battle for turf that we have stopped examining the boundary line itself.

Every one of the eight presidential candidates to address the National Education Association Representative Assembly made a derogatory reference to standardized tests. At least five - possibly more - railed at "fill in the bubble" tests instead of more comprehensive assessments.

There is no question about it. A "fill-in-the-bubble" test is an insufficient method of assessing a student's knowledge and skills. But to whose advantage is that? One would think that the Educational Testing Service alone benefits from standardized tests.

NEA and the presidential candidates assume that alternative forms of assessment would demonstrate students, teachers and schools are performing better than standardized tests would indicate. That assumption is a statement of faith and not of empiricism.

Any question on a fill-in-the-bubble test provides all the data necessary to come up with the correct answer. Students are then supplied with four or five possible responses. By their very nature, standardized tests inflate the scores of students on the low end of the scale. The only students who score lower than 20 percent on a fill-in-the-bubble test are victims of bad luck, since entirely random responses should raise you at least that high.

Just the appearance of a correct answer printed on a test booklet should increase scores across-the-board. Some percentage of students who cannot correctly answer the question "Who was President of the United States during the Civil War?" with no further prompting, will no doubt choose the correct answer when it is placed next to George Washington, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton. There is good reason to believe that scores would plummet if tests were "fill in the blank" instead of "fill in the bubble."

Student assessments can also include essays, projects, or oral interviews. These allow students to demonstrate a deeper and wider knowledge of a particular subject than can be measured by a "fill in the bubble" test. However, using the previous example, it's hard to imagine a student who can write a meaningful and exemplary essay about any aspect of the Civil War if he or she can't answer the "bubble" question of who the President was.

So why would educators and their political allies criticize measurements that cast them in a better light than the alternatives? It seems silly to put it this way, but it's because standardized tests are standardized. A machine checks the answers. The correct answer in Utah is the correct answer in Alabama. Not much interpretation is needed for parents, journalists and the public. There is little avenue to appeal to subjectivity.

All alternative assessments require an evaluator. Evaluators are not, and cannot be, standardized. They may be influenced, properly or improperly, by whether they taught the student, the student's performance on previous tests, the student's background and circumstances, the evaluator's view of the curriculum, the test, and the specific question being asked, and hundreds of other factors.

Because of the political battles over education and the presence of standardized tests, the tendency of school systems is to evaluate students more generously in alternative assessments. In the absence of standardized tests, very few students "fail," receive Fs, are retained, or are denied diplomas.

There has to be a way to reconcile those who demand a specific cut score without any reference to a student's progress and those who are satisfied with "seeing the light in Johnny's eyes," even if Johnny still can't read. Demonizing bubble tests makes for a nice sound bite, but it moves us no closer to answering the eternal question, "How are our students doing?"

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 10:34 | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 08:04 | Permalink | Comments

Click here to read:

The Candidates Address NEA: Running for National Schools Superintendent

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 14:07 | Permalink | Comments

I don't know if Sen. Barack Obama is brilliant or dense, but out of the eight presidential candidates who addressed the NEA Representative Assembly, he's the one who received the breakthrough press coverage -- all because of some vague statement about negotiating alternative pay systems with NEA.

I also honestly don't know why this moment was singled out. Because the delegates didn't boo or hiss? Of course they didn't. They were being nice. But that's not to say they didn't react. At NEA conventions, you have to listen for the silence.

When a crowd cheers every platitude you spout, then stops cheering after one specific platitude, that's a sign of rejection. It happened to Obama, and you don't have to take my word for it.

But it also happened to Sen. Hillary Clinton, after she praised charter schools. And it happened to Gov. Bill Richardson, who was on a roll throughout his remarks to the delegates and hit a brick wall when he mentioned longer school days and longer school years. The grumbling in the back of the hall was clearly audible.

If you talk about education for more than five minutes, you are bound to hit upon a proposal the teachers' unions won't like. A savvy candidate would have entered the hall with "First I Look at the Purse" (the J. Geils Band version) blaring over the loudspeakers, pushing a wheelbarrow full of cash. He or she then would have given the old Richard Nixon two-armed wave and walked off the stage without uttering a word. The delegates would have gone nuts.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 07:42 | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 22:03 | Permalink | Comments

Because of all the presidential candidates, the NEA Representative Assembly ended much later than it has in recent years - 9:34 p.m., if you had that in your office pool. I'll have some video of Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee and Joseph Biden once I can edit it all together.

I've resisted the great temptation to write about the candidates' appearances and speeches as they occurred, but I feel there's a lot to be said that you're not getting from the newspaper coverage. A prime example is the Philadelphia Inquirer's story about Barack Obama supporting merit pay.

This was no Sister Souljah moment. Sen. Obama - who probably does support performance pay - merely misunderstood the inner workings of the union he was addressing.

"I commend the work you've done in Minnesota with the governor there to craft an innovative pay system that not only values your performance in the classroom, but the performance of your students as well," he said. "You helped craft it and you and your students benefit from it."

He was referring to Q-Comp, an alternative pay plan of Gov. Pawlenty's that was put together with plenty of input from Education Minnesota, NEA's and AFT's state affiliate. What Sen. Obama probably didn't know is: a) Education Minnesota's participation in Q-Comp has not been, shall we say, universally embraced within NEA and its other state affiliates; and b) it can't really be considered the pride and joy of Education Minnesota either.

In short, by citing Minnesota, Obama had no reason to believe his statements on alternative pay would be all that controversial with his audience. Nevertheless, there was some murmuring in the hall.

If he miscalculated, he would not be the first politician at the NEA convention to do so. Back in 1999, Hillary Clinton was greeted with a moment of silence when she expressed her great admiration for charter schools. But at the time, NEA had its own Charter School Initiative, and she cited it in her speech. Of course, the Charter School Initiative soon disappeared, and even if Q-Comp does not, there is virtually no chance that NEA desires it as a national model.

I doubt Obama will have to back away from his statement, the way John Kerry had to do in 2004, because he spoke only of discussing such a system with NEA. But I strongly suspect in the future this particular plank in his education platform will see its way out of the woodshed only at more opportune times.

I'll have a lot more on the candidates in Monday's communiqué. I would like to mention that I think I was wrong about Mike Huckabee's appearance here. After hearing him speak, I think he did himself some good, striking just the right humorous tone and avoiding the pitfalls.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 19:43 | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 19:11 | Permalink | Comments

I'm writing this on the Fourth of July. If you're reading it on the Fourth of July, I am very grateful for your enthusiasm, but turn off the computer, spend the day outside with family and friends, and watch the fireworks tonight. This stuff will still be here tomorrow.

I didn't catch all of NEA's Independence Day celebration on the floor of the RA, but what I saw was much more in the spirit of the holiday than last year's airing of grievances. Actor Richard Dreyfus appeared and gave a truncated version of his usual presentation on civics education (he seemed a bit peeved at his time limit). I should have some video up later this evening.

The delegates are running through new business items at a pretty good clip, but there are 95 to debate, and we still have three presidential candidates tomorrow, resolutions, etc., etc.

Additions to the NEA federal legislative agenda were discussed this morning, and a few of these are of interest.

Legislative Amendment 5 proclaims NEA support for mandatory kindergarten.

Legislative Amendment 7 was overwhelmingly defeated after some debate. It would have directed NEA to support "legislation providing funding of DNA testing for African-Americans so they can trace their ancestry and their country of origin."

Legislative Amendment 10 was also overwhelmingly defeated. It would have directed NEA to support ratification of a Constitutional amendment to guarantee every child "the basic right to a high-quality, free, and appropriate public education." This was defeated for the same reason it was defeated last year: the worry that federal judges could use it to impose remedies on America's schools that NEA might not like so much.

Without a single objection, the delegates passed Legislative Amendment 12, which added two more items to the list of things for which you can't use a standardized test. The legislative agenda will now read that NEA opposes "use of student test scores as an evaluative measure for education employee performance appraisal, job assignment, job retention, promotion, tenure, salary increments, and/or school performance."

Perhaps we've found some common ground in the education wars. NEA and the rest of the education establishment seem to be saying that student test scores have little or no relation to what we (education employees) do. I think critics would agree that is, in fact, the case.

I reported in May that NEA President Reg Weaver has assigned to the Professional Standards and Practices Committee the task of revisiting the national union's position on performance pay. NEA's philosophical opposition to the idea will not change, but the national union is concerned about its inability to establish a presence on the issue when it arises in state and local arenas.

The union's position is outlined in Resolution F-10, crafted at the 2000 RA during the last attempt to alter it. The attempt backfired on then-NEA President Bob Chase, resulting in a more strongly worded clause that states, "The Association also believes that performance pay schedules, such as merit pay or any other system of compensation based on an evaluation of an education employee’s performance, are inappropriate."

FIX: I goofed on the timeline earlier in the day when I first posted this, so the following sentence is the corrected version:

At its February meeting, the Resolutions Committee added a proposed amendment that reads:

"The compensation system may recognize and reward the additional knowledge and skills that education employees have acquired or may acquire over their careers."

There is an amendment from the floor that would take that new language back out again. We'll see what transpires tomorrow.

UPDATE: Resolutions were discussed this evening. The deletion was defeated and the new language approved. The resolution now permits "knowledge and skills" pay.

Finally, the proposed constitutional amendment to create the NEA Fan Club failed for the second straight year to achieve a two-thirds majority, receiving only 54 percent of the delegate vote. The delegates also approved an acceleration of the increase in dues assessment that goes to the Ballot Measure/Legislative Crises and Media Campaign Funds. The assessment would have been $8 per member in 2007-08, $9 in 2008-09, and $10 in 2009-10. It had a sunset provision after that.

By today's vote, the assessment will go immediately to $10 in 2007-08, and that assessment was made permanent. I believe this raises the level of NEA's national dues in 2007-08 to $153.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 12:23 | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 16:26 | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 14:54 | Permalink | Comments

Concerned that new business items (NBIs) from the floor might produce positions a little more militant than the union would be prepared to defend, the NEA Board of Directors crafted New Business Items B and C on immigration and the war in Iraq, respectively.

Since the board sponsored these items, they are debated first - a considerable advantage since, if they pass, any subsequent item on the same topic would then be ruled out of order.

New Business Item B affirms NEA's current position on immigration, which basically calls for the protection of immigrant civil and human rights regardless of legal status, but the key education-related provision is spelled out in NBI B:

"NEA will work with its affiliates and other groups to ensure that states and school districts adopt and vigorously enforce policies that protect the right of undocumented immigrant children and the children of undocumented immigrant parents to obtain a free public education in a safe and supportive environment."

New Business Item C enshrines as NEA policy the substance of a letter sent by NEA President Reg Weaver to President Bush last January calling for "an appropriate exit strategy" from Iraq. The item omits any reference to timetables, et al. An attempt to add an amendment that would "oppose turning over Iraq's oil to the multinational oil companies as a pre-condition for U.S. reconstruction aid" was defeated and the item's original language passed by a comfortable margin.

It promises to be a loooong convention since the presidential candidates eat up a large chunk of time. This afternoon we are to hear from New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Rep. Dennis Kucinich from Ohio. If Kucinich sings "Sixteen Tons" I swear I'm going to take a hostage.

There are two different NBIs on the No Child Left Behind Act, one that calls on the federal government to "overhaul" it, the other to "erase" and "rewrite" it. These are not to be confused with NEA's current position, which is to "fix" it.

NBI 15 wants NEA to "promote monarch butterfly studies."

NBI 36 directs NEA to "call for a 48-hour, locally initiated, nationally coordinated political strike early this coming fall to defeat NCLB, oppose bipartisan attacks destroying public education, and demand full education funding at corporate expense." ("Ruh-roh," says Bullseye, the Target Dog).

The item goes on to demand "a massive media campaign this summer exposing the harm done by Eli Broad and Bill Gates through their championing of NCLB, high stakes testing, 'merit' pay, and charterization and privatization of public education."

The bean counters at NEA have put an end to this idea before it even gets ridiculed from the floor, applying a price tag "in excess of $50 million, excluding any potential legal expenses."

New Business Item 52 wants to establish a National Day of Reflection, Dialogue and Action in September 2007 to focus national attention on the reauthorization of NCLB. The nation has studiously avoided focusing on NCLB for five years, I doubt they'll do more than sleep in on NCLB Reflection Day.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 08:49 | Permalink | Comments

I've been needled in the past by NEA delegates for "even criticizing the invocation!" but I thought you should see today's substitution for "Let us pray":

"Ask for help or guidance where you will." - Kelvin Calkins, Region III vice president, Oregon Education Association

Most of today was taken up by the speeches and questions (two each) fielded by Sen. Hillary Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards and Sen. Christopher Dodd. I've got a lot to say about them, and their written responses to NEA's questionnaire, but I want to wait until I hear all the candidates, and cover it in one fell swoop. NEA President Reg Weaver's keynote speech deserves some attention, too. Bear with me, we'll get to it all.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 18:14 | Permalink | Comments

Some clips of today's action:

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 17:40 | Permalink | Comments

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 10:27 | Permalink | Comments

The National Education Association Representative Assembly opens tomorrow, but there already have been a week's worth of pre-convention activities and meetings. My first blog post will follow shortly, but I wanted to share some images with you so you can get a visual sense of what I have been describing in writing for the previous nine years of covering the RA.

Posted by Mike Antonucci at 09:46 | Permalink | Comments